Wut?

Diluted Dante wrote:

I believe you doesn't mean don't investigate and corroborate. What WaPa did is exactly what it means.

Wut?

Alright, but that first sentence doesn't make much sense, regardless.

Is it about the war on chauvinism?

Finally read that. Amazing.

"Shitler Youth" tier 1 diss-name for alt right.

Interesting read that. Echoes a lot of things I've been wondering about for some time now.

Meanwhile, James Franco.

Time did a list of 115 people accused since Weinstein. So many you forget.

https://www.thecut.com/2018/01/pop-cultures-great-awokening.html

Shout out to @tempy for the link. Cracking read.

Whether or not you're a fan of identity politics or not, it's worth a read as an overview of the last year + and the current state of popular culture and how we interact with it.

The way structural stuff around capitalism and neoliberalism is basically ignored is clearly why pilger and other old school left/socialists and old school feminists get shitty with it.

That sounds like Eskimos having x number of words for snow.

This is probably a good one for the likes of @Facewon who see themselves as people who are progressive on women’s rights but slightly uncomfortable with certain aspects of how things have unfolded:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/17/assault-is-not-a-feeling-the-aziz-ansari-story-shows-why-language-matters

Channel 4 news had some shithead on last night trying to counter pay gap arguments.

His major argument seemed to be women are less ruthless than men. His evidence, lobsters show the same attributes and our evolution can be tracked back to that of the lobster.

Liveinadive wrote:

Channel 4 news had some shithead on last night trying to counter pay gap arguments. His major argument seemed to be women are less ruthless than men. His evidence, lobsters show the same attributes and our evolution can be tracked back to that of the lobster.

Sounds legit.

A lot of the Ansari stuff is frustrating because he's clearly a big target and the incident whilst hardly victimless errs closer to discomfort and misunderstanding than assault.

But, when you've positioned yourself as some kind of progressive Softboy and it turns out you're doing the exact things you're making money off criticising, people are gonna react badly. I think that Great Awokening article I shared with Face did a good job of tackling this issue, especially with regards to Ansari.

Tempy wrote:

I think this is a good response: https://jezebel.com/babe-what-are-you-doing-1822114753

It’s not bad but I must be missing something - it seems, to be, primarily about the sloppy way in which such stories are reported and covered and the issues raised couldn’t really be levelled at the Guardian piece above which seemed compassionate but also wary.

When the Jezebel article does go over issues with the event itself, it uses the same broad language and tales of power structures that are applied to other stories - like Wesintein, Allen etc.

It raises the point that she texted him expressing her discomfort with the event, but omits that he apologised immediately and then continued to be a public supporter of women’s rights. It simply states here that he confirmed the exchange and then reiterated support of #metoo.

Grace said Ansari coerced her into sexual behavior that was well beyond her boundaries, ignoring her verbal and nonverbal attempts to stop their sexual exchange. After the date, she told Babe, she texted Ansari and told him that she had been uncomfortable with the experience, and that he should have been more mindful; the website published screenshots of the text exchange. By Sunday afternoon, Ansari had issued a statement confirming their exchange, and reiterating his support for the #MeToo movement.

It then states:

One of journalism’s most important tasks is exposing the hypocrisy of the powerful; if Ansari is publicly claiming feminism but treating women poorly in his private life, that deserves to be interrogated.

To argue that Ansari has been hypocritical or that he treats women poorly would require a pattern of behaviour to be established. His wokeness does not preclude him from the right to be judged fairly, not does it mean that he is not allowed to miss non-verbal cues. There was never any insinuation that there was an offer of career advancement, nor that he was any physical threat to her or that he lured her to his house on false pretences. Once he was aware of the perceived indiscretion he apologised and neither contacted her, heralded her or, from what we know, sought retribution against her.

I agree with the basic premise of the article - the way this has been reported has been cheap, shallow and exploitative. But the article itself adds precious little to the discourse and the Guardian column above, IMO, avoids the pitfalls raised.